A few more comments have dropped on planning portal
And this is why I will continue to call them out brought in to fosb lies
View attachment 18538
Most of that is opinion, so will not be viewed as material but there are points raised against policy which piqued my interest, so I looked at the CDC Local Plan, or more specifically those three policies for Ecologically Sustainable Development
ESD 1: Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change
There are three targets
1) Carbon emission to be reduced (over the life of the plan)
2) No permission to be granted contrary to advice from the Environment Agency advice on Flood Risk grounds
3) Access to services and facilities by public transport, walking and cycling to be improved (over the life of the plan)
ESD 3: Sustainable Construction
Two targets here, the first is concerned with dwellings so is not applicable, the second requires that non-residential development is built to a minimum BREEAM Very Good standard
ESD 14: Oxford Green Belt
One target here, the rather ambiguous statement that all development in Green Belt is to comply with Policy ESD14. Looking at the quoted paragraph B.260, this states “It is essential that the impact on the Green Belt is minimised, therefore priority will be given to locations that lie adjacent to existing development, avoid the coalescence of settlements, protect the vulnerable Kidlington Gap and otherwise have the least impact possible on the Green Belt”
So in my view, ESD1 and ESD3 are met in full by the published plans and ESD 14 is arguable. Bear in mind, I am an amateur and minds immeasurably superior to mine will have already dissected these policy statements and compared them with the requirements of the NPPF and PPG to conclude whether the benefits outweigh the harm when making the application.
While looking, I note that the Local Plan has been recently reviewed (as it must every 5 years) and CDC approved the review in Feb 2023. The conclusions therein for all three ESB points are that they are "generally consistent with the NPPF”, so CDC should not be able argue otherwise.